Gathering (decision making)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gathering is a procedure for making or assisting in making decisions in groups and organisations.
[edit] Procedure
Anyone involved in a decision making process may, at any time that seems appropriate to them, start a gather. A gather is a gathering together or summary of all the different needs, opinions and relevant information that have become apparent in the process up to this time. If anyone thinks that a gather is insufficiently accurate or complete, they can re-gather. The important rule is that a re-gather has to be a complete gather, not just a correction. The process continues until everyone thinks that the latest gather is good enough. Once a gather has been completed everyone involved then has a summary of all the different needs, opinions and information and, effectively, acknowledge them all. This means that everyone is likely to feel heard.
A gather may amount to a decision. For instance, a course or courses of action may have been put forward, with people willing to carry them out, it is clear that that everyone is content for such action to take place and if more than one action is proposed they are not mutually exclusive. On the other hand, it may be clear from a gather that more discussion or problem solving needs to take place. However, this will be assisted by the issues having been mapped out in the gather.
[edit] Application
Gathering is a natural aid to panocratic decision making since everyone who takes part has a say in the outcomes. However, it can be used to enhance other decision making procedures and it does not require the others involved to agree to its use or even to know that it is being used. If the chair of a meeting summarises the needs and opinions all the participants and all the relevant information they have, in effect, started a gather. If another participant thinks that this gather is inaccurate or insufficiently complete, they might re-gather rather than just pointing out the errors or omissions. In fact, a gather could be started by any participant if the meeting procedures allow.
Naturally, for a gather to include information from everyone involved, this information needs to be expressed. Rounds, or go-rounds, may be used to give everyone an opportunity to express their point of view. Voting or straw polls may also be used to gauge the strength of support for particular points of view or numbers affected by particular issues.
[edit] Advantages
An outcome of gathering is that everyone involved effectively acknowledges the positions of everyone else. Hence everyone is likely to feel heard and part of the process. This tends to lead to a good level of support for whatever decisions are made.
Gathering supports a problem solving approach to resolving issues. Whereas in other decision making processes, awkward information may be suppressed or not voiced as it may be seen as getting in the way of being able to reach a decision, gathering encourages all the issues to be mapped out. This supports the initial stage of problem analysis. Further, the encouragement of everyone to be involved supports solution generation, in other words thinking up a range of alternatives to solving the problems.
Another advantage is that it can support multiple outcomes and even action in the face of dissent. It may be clear that there are several ways of approaching a situation and also that it is practical to pursue a number of them simultaneously. There may even be competing possibilities which could be pursued as an experiment.
Gathering supports the concept that we are all responsible for our own choices and actions. Everyone involved will make their own decisions as to how they act following a group decision making process. If gathering has been used everyone has a good idea about how others would be affected and might respond to any actions that they take. Hence, people can take responsible decisions to act in ways that may be opposed by others, even if that is a majority of the people involved. Also, a majority may decide to take certain action even though there is a minority that is opposed to that action. In other words, a minority cannot block action as it can in some consensus decision making, nor do they need to assent to the actions of the others.
